Reviews written by registered user
|214 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I wanted some easy to digest entertainment and got it. Redford at 40 still looks good (before he gets the road map face from drugs or sun) Dunaway a nice female lead at 35. Big Oil (this was right after the first oil embargo 1974) CIA within the CIA anyway somehow Redford stumbles on a plan by evil people in the US government to invade the middle east from reading plots in novels??---this is the story Redford as Joe Blow is hired to read books to identify creative ideas in espionage and national policy??? But he stumbles on one that is a live plan and he must be shot Charlie Hebro style with everyone in the office. Then he randomly hook up with Dunaway and they figure it out. I would have given this a 7 except for the last scene where Redford tries to cash in on Watergate etc..by saying he's told everything to the New York Times. This politicized the whole thing as a Lefty Hollywood schlock. By the way they did a good job of concealing Redfords 5' 4" height mainly by never showing whole body shots and using people even shorter than him. Still not a bad way to pass a couple hours.
This movie is bad. I had a bad premonition from the opening scenes with
Jean Reno driving around with lots of attention to cliché opera and an
obnoxious little kid...the Yuppie PC red lights started to blink.
I was not wrong...corny shot after corny shot--this movie is flat out bad almost so bad as to be funny....the only thing that makes it kind of bearable is it is filmed so close up it provides some interest in the camera angles. That's it.
The story? Gangster trying to retire is gunned down but he lives and goes after the other gangsters who now deal in drugs---apparently he feels that is immoral.
A great look at Helsinki you'll never see in any travel brochure. I
went into this movie blind--and found it fun in removing me from the
here and now. The tone is noirish and deadpan---the actors perfect for
the roles. All of it was sort of believable in a humorous way which is
key to this movie.
The movie was made in 1986 almost 30 years ago so it involves some time travel as well.
I recommend it is the sort of thing I like although I would not probably rush to watch it again...
To a naive viewer--knew nothing of Visconti--am familiar with
Mastroianni and Schnell...this movie is remarkable mostly for keeping
your interest up for an hour and a half with so little story and no
live scenery. It is entirely shot on a smallish set that looks like a
nightmare modern dystopia.
Yes the story is believable if you wind it back 100 years or more to Dostoyevsky and the set looks like a bombed out St. Petersburg crossed with a Naples slum. The Story? Unrequitted love--Schnell is a poor girl of 18 or so whose grandmother pins her to her skirt to keep track of her. A new boarder rents a room from them and pays her attention. She falls in love and after he leaves and promises to come back in 1 year she waits at a bridge every night for his return. Meanwhile Mastroianni befriends her and falls in love with her... I won't tell the ending although you know something is going to happen unexpected it is the only thing that keeps you watching.
I didn't really find anything egregious in this movie although I watch old movies for the live street scenes and the nostalgic time travel that permits...this had ZERO. The funky 50s wild sex toned dancing seems to have been a staple of the time have seen it in numerous European movies a big yawn. Every detail in this type of movie is significant the swinging door--Schnell may be open to Mastroianni's advances ad infinitum...The only thing out of place were the Coke and Esso ads...
7.7 is too much praise not needed for this.... I give it a 6 for the opera/play like scenery. Could anyone stand to watch it twice once the surprise ending that keeps you watching is known? Not me.
This is a take on the tired Agatha Christie plot: Someone is murdered
at a "weekend" gathering in a huge house and it turns out he was
"murdered" by more than one person.
This movie is a non ending collage of group scenes with more than 2 people talking at once--this alone is exhausting and irritating. Plot development is distracted to say the least.
The interior set seemed claustrophobic to me too many people too small of spaces.
Mostly the thing is boring. A murder happens after about an hour of endless group scenes..the kitchen the dining table blah blah blah.....
Altman was 77 when he made this turkey. He should have followed Maggie Smith's line in the movie "People should know when to retire."
It is also a feel good Anglo American Jewish PC ensemble piece....
DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME!
This opaque thriller was a made for TV movie in 1996. It opens with a
sex scene between a happily married couple of 10 years or so. I should
have stopped watching it right then as was my instinct. Yes, it gets
worse...every yuppie icon of the 80s and 90s is expressed at 500 proof.
The tasteful area rugs the people too young to own the kind of house they do...everyone has gone to Harvard. The feminist angle is in lights with a wife that wants to go back to work after taking a refresher class in art---- at Harvard of course; she wants to open an art gallery. Bore Gaggg Ugghhh ...
The yuppie era started with Love Story and hopefully 1996 was about it's crescendo. I am waiting for it's decline and fall. I have OD'd on PC upper middle class wannabe overkill.
OK, the movie. The main character is told by a hired killer that his wife paid him to kill him (he won't kill him if he pays him double). But then the wife herself ends up dead. There is a truly obnoxious "Japanese" character who is a red herring... The ending is just plain stupid. This thing is opaque and trys to be much more than it is. It is not suspenseful you feel like you were left in the dark to make to make the story line work.
AVOID THIS THING especially if you are allergic to yuppidom.
Debra Winger plays the nosy who dunnit sleuth who tracks down Theresa
Russell (the black widow) a young woman whose older rich husbands
mysteriously die leaving her richer and richer.
I watched this movie when it first came out and I couldn't believe I was watching the same thing I don't remember it being so bad! This movie did not age well.
The beginning is really the worst part once you get to Seattle it stops being so clichéd juvenile & cheesy corny and slow. The Dallas part was particularly horrible with the fake Southern accents and three inch bright red finger nails. It has the feel of a B or made for TV thing yet clearly was shot on location etc...
It would have been so much better if Russell had gotten away with it....but this is Hollywood corn at its height--none of that.
Richly well filmed must have cost a lot. Needs a lot more subtlety.
The movie was fairly popular at the time and made over 25 million dollars.
There are a lot worst things out there.
This is based a true event 3 inmates did escape from Alcatraz and their
bodies were never found.
Wonderful cinematography by Siegel and of course Eastwood himself make this fun to watch.
As far as believable that is another story. The person who wrote this has never spent significant time in jail or prison. Aside from the wonderful $500 haircuts of Eastwood and the other actors what prison allows you to wear nice shoes and have paint material in your cells let alone matches?
What it looked like was a bunch of middle aged middle class actors in jail. They were too soft looking. Not the real deal. When I was in jail we were given a plastic 2 inch fork/spoon that bent nothing sharp or hard was allowed.
The reality would have been younger men also I imagine.
Well it is entertaining and has only average PC stuff of the era nothing intolerable--still why is that so necessary? Left wing Hollywood. At least in Eastwood's spaghetti westerns there is none of that.
Can a miniature table fan produce enough torque to drill through metal? Where did they get the pipe to snap the bars in the ventilator shaft? And why did the bars snap so easily. You have to suspend a lot of disbelief to enjoy this movie.
Siegel is a genius at action sequences. This would have gotten a 7 but I love Eastwood and Siegel so it got an 8.
I notice the bad reviews focus on the terrible criminals in real jails and the nice guards etc.....those type reviewers have never been incarcerated either.
A British B or quota movie. Some of these are not too bad but this one
rates a Z rather than a B.
The acting was atrocious it was wordy there were holes every where in the plot. Production values couldn't have been cheaper except for the burning house at the end which was kind of neat.
A man with amnesia is spirited out of hospital with fake casts to take the place of an alcoholic playboy so 3 women can inherit a share of their teetotaler father's 2 million dollars.
I can't think of any thing good about this thing... but as another reviewer stated it wasn't bad enough to be funny it was just boring dull and irritating. Combine bad acting and talkiness and you've got a real lemon.
DO NOT RECOMMEND
Everyone knows this film and everyone loves it.
I tried to observe some flaws if there are any in it. The actress playing the daughter looked too old for the role. Stanwyck was 37 when this was made and Mc Murray was 36.
I agree with the reviewer who stated Mc Murray's later roles in TV sit coms and so forth tainted his image. It's true it was hard to take him seriously.
A new Cadillac driving around the rail road tracks might attract some notice especially in 1939 (the year this is supposed to take place).
Also you have to suspend disbelief that Mc Murray would be so smitten by Stanwyck he would attempt anything like this. She is not especially at 37 (or any age!) the most attractive woman in the world. The blond wig? I guess was supposed to make her look ?? maybe cheap or tainted. She can carry any role though plouging through it like a bulldozer.
But these are so minor. I loved the movie watch it and read the other reviews.
|Page 1 of 22:||          |